Men Behaving Badly

They seem to be becoming more involved with crime. They seem to be growing more dishonest. They seem to be increasingly hostile and aggressive toward others. They seem less committed to their partners and to their families. They are clearly doing less well in terms of their education. And they seem to be more pre-occupied with their own narrow self-interests than they used to be.

What can possibly account for this apparent deterioration in the behaviours of western men?

Or are they simply responding to the way in which western societies treat them these days?

In my view, the major cause of what seems to be a significant deterioration in the behaviours of men is, quite simply, feminism.

The evidence shows that feminism is not only the primary cultural cause of the current-day bad behaviours of men, it is also the primary cultural cause of very many other current-day serious societal problems.

Before demonstrating to readers how it is that feminism is largely responsible for the current bad behaviours of men, it is important to understand the two following points.

1. Feminism - together with political correctness - has been the most influential ideology in western societies for the past three decades. There are no other ideologies that even come to it in terms of the extent to which it has penetrated western societies.

Feminism has penetrated very deeply western governments, western laws, western social services, western universities, western colleges, western schools, western media, western families, western bedrooms and western minds.

And it has done so for three decades - a decade longer than even Hitler had - with far fewer resources - in which to stir up his mass hatred toward the Jews.

2. Political correctness has been aggressively supported and strongly buttressed by feminists. Indeed, feminists have done their level best to promote any activity which undermines men - particularly white heterosexual ones.

And political correctness has been a very useful weapon for them in this respect.

Every ill that can be blamed on political correctness, can also be blamed on those who endorse and underpin it. And no group has done more to foist political correctness on to western societies than the feminists.

For three decades, the feminists and the politically correct have engaged in a wholesale onslaught against white heterosexual men.

White men have been persistently accused of being racist by highly vocal racial activists and racial minorities, and their history and their forefathers have been thoroughly undermined and blackened - to the extent that many racial activists are now demanding reparations for past slavery.

Heterosexual men have been continually portrayed as being violent, abusive, oppressors of women by mainstream feminists and a whole plethora of abuse professionals who have a vested interest in portraying men in this way.

Heterosexual men have also been represented by the beautifully orchestrated gay lobby as being bigoted and fearful of their own sexuality.

All men have been assaulted almost ceaselessly by various women's groups, children's groups, social service workers, therapists and analysts who have sought to indoctrinate the population with the view that men are abusers of children.

The ubiquitous feminist-fearing mainstream media have consistently sought to demonise and humiliate the entire male gender - a typical example of which can be seen in the recent vindictive column by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times entitled Incredible Shrinking Y.

And the all-powerful western governments together with the legal profession have almost disempowered men completely when it comes to their families, their relationships and their homes, on the grounds that women and children are often better off without them. (The Federal Bureau of Marriage? by Professor Stephen Baskerville gives a good insight into how this is being achieved.)

If A keeps telling B that he considers him to be worthless, and continues to accuse him of things that he has not done, and persistently undermines him in relation to his family and to his children, and continually seeks to portray him as an abuser and an oppressor, who should be surprised if B finally turns his back on A?

Well. This is the kind of thing that has been going on in western societies for a long time now thanks to the wholesale demonisation of males by the feminists.

And many millions of men are - and have been - responding to this by turning their backs on their own societies.

Indeed, they are not only increasingly refusing to support their own societies, many are, in fact, responding by giving them a bloody nose! - crime, violence etc.

Well. Let us look at some of the reasons why western men might have become this way as a result of feminism (and, indeed, as a result of political correctness).

1. The constant feminist-inspired demonisation and denigration of men throughout the west has resulted not only in many of them feeling worthless, with the result that they now reject the worthwhile values of their own societies (with some turning to crime, drugs, irresponsible behaviours etc) it has also undermined any reason for them to shape up.

Furthermore, the ubiquitous negative descriptions of men that continually pour out of the mainstream media simply make many men feel quite entitled to behave in accordance with those very same descriptions!

For example, I once saw a headline in a newspaper complaining about the fact that, "Men do not do housework."

As a taunt to my partner, I cut out the headline and stuck it on the notice board in the kitchen. But I added the following words underneath it. "Well, if men are not doing any housework, then neither am I!"

The point is that if men are persistently deemed to be slothful - or whatever - then many men, with much justification, will see no reason to behave any differently from the way in which they and their fellow men are being depicted.

2. The western educational system has been so heavily biased against boys for the past few decades that they are doing very badly at school. Not only have the educationalists been using diabolically poor teaching methods (e.g. in their teaching of reading skills) but the curricula have been so feminised and politically corrected that boys quickly lose any interest that they might have had in being 'educated'.

This, coupled with poor standards of discipline, has led to our societies having to bear the burden of having millions of undisciplined, uneducated males in their midsts.

3. The effect of feminism and political correctness in education - e.g. in the study of History - and in the mainstream media, where 'great white men of noble character' are hardly seen to exist any more means that there are few good role models for boys in their growing years. And the images of men that are daily inflicted upon young men and boys are overwhelmingly negative.

Is it surprising, therefore, that so many men actually have no real concept of what a 'good man' is?

4. Thanks to the wholesale corruption of the family courts and the "no-fault" divorce laws, men no longer have any real motivation to devote most of their lives, their love, their money etc into bringing up a family. Why should they - when it can all be taken away from them at the whim of their partners?

Furthermore, prejudicial 'relationship laws' - such as those pertaining to domestic violence and child abuse etc - make men feel very insecure within their relationships.

And to add to all this there is the daily carpeting of man-hatred that pours out of the feminist-dominated media telling women and children to report their partners for abuse of some sort.

Well. There are only two main ways in which men can deal with the relationship insecurity that all this brings about.

Firstly, they can stop caring very much about their relationships so that they are not too hurt when they eventually break down.

Secondly, they can refrain completely from committing themselves to, or from investing in, any long-term serious ones.

5. The welfare system hotly promoted and buttressed both by the feminists and the politically correct supports single motherhood. And the same is true for the laws concerning child-support payments and alimony.

These not only make fathers and husbands redundant, they also encourage their very own women and children to see them in exactly this way.

Men are, therefore, easily rejected, and they are often also treated with contempt.

6. Family and marital breakdown are the major cause of misbehaviour and poor socialisation in males. Indeed, those who are brought up without their fathers at home are far more likely ...

... to be trouble in school
... to have more trouble getting along with others
... to have health problems
... to suffer physical, emotional, or sexual abuse
... to run away from home
... to experience problems with sexual health

... to become teenage parents
... to offend against the law
... to smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs
... to play truant from school
... to be excluded from school
... to leave school at 16

... to have adjustments to adulthood problems
... to attain little in the way of qualifications
... to experience unemployment
... to have low incomes
... to be on welfare
... to experience homelessness

... to go to jail
... to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems
... to engage only in casual relationships
... to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership

But feminists have always done their best to break up traditional families and to exclude fathers from them, because they believe that traditional families are oppressive to women.

And this particularly huge catalogue of societal ills that has arisen directly from their assault on marriage and family was successfully repressed by the mainstream feminist-fearing media for two decades.

7. The encouragement of immigration - legal and illegal - by the left-wing politically correct (supported heavily by feminists) has led to a breaking down of the main culture and to a large increase in the size of the criminal underclass. This, together with all the factors mentioned previously, has led to millions of young men engaging in crime or in being closely associated with others who engage in it.

In the UK, one-third of all men have a criminal conviction. In the USA, some 2 million men are in prison and another 4 million are somehow currently involved with the criminal justice system.

8. As Lew Rockwell readers will know only too well, taxes are far too high as a consequence of the ever-burgeoning government and its ever-increasing activities.

Well. It is women - and feminists in particular - and other 'minorities' - through their politically-corrected activists - who are the main supporters of big government and heavy taxation.

And the result of heavy taxation is that people are less motivated when it comes to working for a living and, for many men, it makes crime and sloth an even more attractive option.

Well, I could go on and make many more connections between feminism and the poor behaviours of men.

If you glance again at the 8 points above you will see that they allude to huge negative influences that impact, in some way or other, upon all males. And they each affect all males very badly indeed.

Furthermore, every single one of these huge negative influences directly arises from ideas and policies promoted and buttressed by feminists.

Indeed, feminism is the main cause of the most pressing problems facing western societies.

None of the above is to suggest that genes do not play a part in the bad behaviours of men. They surely do - just as much as they do with regard to the bad behaviours of women. And neither is it necessary to make any claims about whether children are 'born good' - and are corrupted by society - or 'born bad' - and need to be disciplined and socialised.

The point is that we do know that the way in which societies are constructed, the values that they hold, and the methods through which their aims are sought, have a great bearing on the way in which the people within them behave - e.g. just look at the effects of fatherlessness listed above.

And when an ideology has been hugely pervasive, influential and dominant for three whole decades it should not be allowed to escape from being seen as significantly responsible for the social consequences that are very clearly associated with it.

Furthermore, if western men continue to be persistently attacked, accused, vilified, undermined and demonised, disempowered within their families and discriminated against through the justice system, their behaviours are likely to grow considerably worse!

And if feminists continue to pursue their aims without regard to the way in which they are alienating millions of men, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future both they and their supporters (e.g. in the media, in academia and in government) are going to be in for a very nasty shock.

Finally, given that feminists have ruthlessly pursued their aims without regard to the well-being of men, why should men not now do the very same?

For example, why should men strive particularly hard to support their families given that some 50% of them will eventually lose them; and much else besides - with a further significant percentage remaining in unhappy marriages because they have no realistic alternatives? Why should they labour to set themselves up for so much serious hurt?

Why should men work for long hours? - particularly if they have onerous jobs and given that the state will take much of their earnings in taxes.

Why should men with limited resources bother to save any money when their governments will tax it and subject it to significant devaluation?

Why should men commit themselves to one particular woman when so many are now available for fun and frolics?

Why should men not seek hours of pleasure from superficial pursuits - such as those deriving from their various gadgets, toys, sports and videogames? Do not women spend many of their hours gawping at celebrities and soap operas, and thinking about fashion, cosmetics and romantic fantasies?

Why should men not be aggressive or offensive toward women given that women are nowadays aggressive and offensive toward them?

Indeed, why should men pursue 'nobler' aims when these are persistently undermined by feminists and their governments?

The bad behaviours of men mostly reflect the fact that western men are now following more their own desires and their own predilections. And they are caring less about how this may affect others.

In other words, they are doing exactly what the feminist handbooks and many women's magazines have been urging women to do for years.

You are correct that a guy can have enjoyable sex with a woman that he is not emotionally connected to (else prostitution would not be the worlds oldest profession), so one option available to high-status men who have had all the kids they're interested in having, is to get a vasectomy and then have a succession of girlfriends (keeping no individual one around long enough to qualify for "palimony")

This may work for low or middle-status men as well and in the worst case they can always use prostitutes, it's still cheaper than child support.

But no solution consisting of turning back the "clock" (i.e getting rid of no fault divorce, dismantling the "social security" net of direct wealth transfer from young to old and men to women, etc) is on the horizon, given the opposing distribution of power amongst academia, media, govt beauracracy, etc. IMO they will tinker around the edges and never get to the root of the problem. And then things will get really, really bad . IMO.

I am not sure where things are heading on the government side, but the simple law of supply and demand tells me that the shortage of marriage-minded men may give men an opportunity to dictate the price (provided they are smart enough to recognize the opportunity.) Also, we may see even more cohabitation.

the shortage of marriage-minded men may give men an opportunity to dictate the price (provided they are smart enough to recognize the opportunity.)

But isn't the Law, the Law? Once he has offspring with someone, he's still screwed if she bails out. Maybe he gets to shop around more and has more choice, but the gov't is not on his side.

Also, we may see even more cohabitation.

I agree, but how does that help either partner, aside from avoiding taxes? He is still responsible for the offspring, in the same way. Actually, he has less rights in custody proceedings (if less were possible)

I need to find me a 'sugar-momma'.

A hot older lady (early-mid 40's) with lots of her previous husband's money who will use me for cheap sex, likes guns, and takes me on cool vacations where there are golf courses.

My end of the bargain is wild booty-slapping sex, looking good on her arm, not saying anything dumb to friends she is trying to impress, helping her spend her ex's money and being both charming and delightful.

the shortage of marriage-minded men may give men an opportunity to dictate the price (provided they are smart enough to recognize the opportunity.)

But isn't the Law, the Law? Once he has offspring with someone, he's still screwed if she bails out. Maybe he gets to shop around more and has more choice, but the gov't is not on his side.

You are mostly right, but the law of supply and demand means that men can make demands prior to getting married, such as requiring a prenuptial agreement, requiring that the prospective spouse be debt-free etc.

Also, we may see even more cohabitation.

There still may be child support but there usually is no alimony and no division of property. Far from ideal, but better than marriage.

Other things may happen. We may see more men becoming self-employed/incorporated in order to obfuscate the financial picture. We may see men emigrate in order to escape child support (actually, I'm surprised it's not happening yet, at least not on a large scale.)

the law of supply and demand means that men can make demands prior to getting married, such as requiring a prenuptial agreement, requiring that the prospective spouse be debt-free etc.

A pre-nup doesnt get you out of the child support leg irons. Remember, child support payments now are about equal to what child support plus alimony used to be 30 yrs ago, as a percentage of your salary.

Also, we may see even more cohabitation. ...There still may be child support but there usually is no alimony and no division of property. Far from ideal, but better than marriage.

But how about property aquired after cohabitation began? I'm not sure he gets to keep all that. But as I mentioned above, alimony is not the big problem (most women work or remarry, etc) as much as child support is, which can absolutely strangle a guy. If you marry and divorce before having kids, its not that bad a financial problem. .. You might see more childless couples, of course....

The latter, for sure, if there was somewhere the guy without a lot of money could go. More than a few men change their identity and slip off to Mexico and Canada; often with their kids, illegally.

Again, all these things mentioned are destructive to society as a whole.

IMO they will tinker around the edges and never get to the root of the problem. And then things will get really, really bad.

I agree with that. There are some natural processes that are sinusoidal... business cycles, the see-sawing populations of wolves and rabbits, etc. This does not look like one of those to me. People say, "the pendulum must swing back," but it might not be a pendulum at all.

Nature uses a whole bunch of processes that are episodic and catastrophic: forest fires, asteroid strikes, etc., where basically everything gets reset to zero quickly, and then the building process starts over again. These phenomena are "cyclical," but the waveforms are more like a sawtooth than a sine wave. This could be one of those. I hope it's one of those. In that one we have some kind of economic/political implosion that looks like Very Hard Times to the people going through it, but it is not the end.

There is another kind of process that can also look like this, but the sawtooth drop does mark the end; there is no next cycle. Disease organisms are like that... they go into runaway "success," but what is success to them is death to their host organism, whose death ends the game for them as well. If Western Civilization can't keep its geography populated, the "success" of the people who made that happen will end with the same big thud. I don't think Gay Pride Day appears in Qu'ran, and neither do female-friendly divorce courts.

A hot older lady (early-mid 40's) with lots of her previous husband's money who will use me for cheap sex, likes guns, and takes me on cool vacations where there are golf courses.

Such gigs are hard to find. A guy I know gets into them occasionally -- he's in construction, in good shape (or, he was. Age catches up with us all), etc. The relationships don't last.

The problem is that the situation is asymmetrical. Guys go for looks, girls go for status, and a guy that you are supporting is just not high-status to your friends.

I agree with most of what you wrote. I was writing with the intention of describing how men may try to make the most of the lousy cards we are dealt and I am very well aware that making a disease less painful is no substitute for curing it.

By the way, I am a divorced father and I do not pay child support, thanks to the joint custody.

Traditional families are becoming extinct, 20 million children have been violently tortured and murdered in their mothers' wombs since 1973, gangs of rootless young men roam through inner cities wreaking murder and mayhem, Lady Hillary McBeth is touted as our next feminist oberfuhrer, . . .

But all in all, life is splendid . . . simply splendid!

You are mostly right, but the law of supply and demand means that men can make demands prior to getting married, such as requiring a prenuptial agreement, requiring that the prospective spouse be debt-free etc.

This assumes that the prenup gets enforced. The courts may decide to enforce it, or may disregard it as "against public policy". See here. Also, provisions regarding child support are prohibited (see here) and any prenup which would "provide a standard of living far below that which was enjoyed before the marriage" will also be unenforcable (see prior link). Also, it may be cancelled if one party "signed under duress" (here), where "duress" may be found to include "sign this or I won't marry you"

Bottom line: a prenup may not be enforcible against her, but certainly WILL be enforced against YOU)

By the way, I am a divorced father and I do not pay child support, thanks to the joint custody.

I commiserate, and as far as your kids go ,you are fairly lucky, IMO.. My best friend got dumped by his ex-wife and now pays well over 40 % of his gross in child support alone. He lives in a tiny walk-up in NYC while his wife and kids have a nice big apt on the Upper East Side. He was pretty near suicidal after it first happened; he certainly is not the same person he was 10 yrs ago, in many ways. And he can barely influence his kids' upbringing, either. Very sad.

The point you make, and prove by your very words and actions, is that women have been conditioned and trained to be light in their thinking and act without thinking.
Your words sound more like a liberal's than a conservative's.

Besides, if I constantly denigrated you and insulted you, wouldn't YOU have a reason to be upset about it?
I held open a door for two esteemed young brainwashed examples of today's young women.
They screamed that I was sexually harrassing them merely by HOLDING THE DOOR OPEN for them.
So I slammed it in their whining snotty nosed faces.
Which they deserved.
IF you enjoy polite society, then you should thank traditional values instead of feminism.
Traditional feminism brought you nothing more than the lie that sex without rules and regrets is fine, and that dressing like a prostitute doesn't make you one.

What a shallow, hollow, and pathetic life you aspire to.

As opposed to what? My 'nice Christian Ex' spent all our savings on crap, tarot reading and vice and then called the cops on me when I complained....

The bank account of your common sense is diwndling to its last few tacky pennies.

That is the most tortured metaphor I have ever seen. It's dwindling along with my actual bank account 'cuz I initially believed in marriage and life-long bonding and got scroooooooooood by the law like so, so many other men..... Which is the point of this article, dope.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.